in [HP48]

Prev: HP 50g + ROM 2.09
Next: HP calc. Customer Service
From: Volker Neurath on 3 Sep 2006 12:19 Zeno wrote: >> Try sin(1146408/364913) on a calc that beautifies its results (in rad >> mode) and you should get 0. My TI-35 does give the wrong answer while >> the HP has no problems. > > Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator) > gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13. > The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12, so I'm afraid > Casio wins this contest hands down. Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result. Update for CAS available? (just asking...) Volker -- Im ?brigen bin ich der Meinung, das TCPA verhindert werden muss
From: Zeno on 3 Sep 2006 13:55 In article <1ubrs3-5gb.ln1 (a)ID-29596.user.individual.de>, Volker Neurath<neanderix (a)gmx.de> wrote:> Zeno wrote: > > >> Try sin(1146408/364913) on a calc that beautifies its results (in rad > >> mode) and you should get 0. My TI-35 does give the wrong answer while > >> the HP has no problems. > > > > Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator) > > gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13. > > The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12, so I'm afraid > > Casio wins this contest hands down. > > Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result. > > Update for CAS available? (just asking...) > > Volker As I explained in my former posting, that thread that says the HPS get it wrong is itself wrong, so the HPs get it right. Yours is fine. Only the HPs get any trig answer correct to 12 significant digits no matter what the input is. Calculations of the HPs checked by me in Mathematica.
From: John H Meyers on 5 Sep 2006 18:51 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:45:57 -0500, Zeno wrote: > In article <op.te0il8f9nn735j (a)w2kjhm.ia.mum.edu>, John H Meyers wrote...The part you quoted was from someone else. >> Try sin(1146408/364913) > Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator) > gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13. > The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12 '1146408/364913' \->NUM is 3.14159265359 (correctly rounded to 12 digits) 'SIN(3.14159265359)' [RAD mode] is -2.06761537357E-13 (also correct). The CFX-9800G wasn't among those I've ever referred to, but the only way in which it could appear more accurate than the HP calcs was to calculate the original fraction to more digits, thus changing the argument to SIN() (which was intended to be the closest representable value to \pi on comparable calculators). Let's try the stated fraction and then SIN anyway, using SysRPL instead (which gives us 15-digit truncated mantissas): :: % 1146408 %>%% % 364913 %>%% %%/ %%SIN %%>% ; ( Result -1.61E-12 on HP48/49) > so I'm afraid Casio wins this contest hands down. No, not even a calc using more digits in every value does any better. > Sorry. Pick a better example next time. Pick on a same-mantissa-size calc next time, because even a smaller HP can still take on a bigger Casio ;-) [r->] [OFF]
From: John H Meyers on 5 Sep 2006 19:49
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:19:45 -0500: >> Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)... > Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result. It gets the absolutely most correct possible result (same as earliest HP48) for a calc with 12-digit mantissas, and even the right 15-digit result if performed in "long" mode. Gee, I wonder how many are push-overs for equally specious political nonsense? [and other fields of human experience as well] [r->] [OFF] |